When Funds Flow into Gold and Silver, Bitcoin Is Temporarily Left Behind

比推Published on 2025-12-26Last updated on 2025-12-26

Abstract

In 2025, precious metals surged dramatically, with silver rising parabolically to a record $72/oz and gold reaching $4524.30/oz, up 143% and 70% annually, respectively. In contrast, Bitcoin fell 8% year-to-date and dropped 30% from its October peak. This divergence challenges the "digital gold" narrative, as traditional safe-haven drivers—such as a weaker dollar, Fed rate cut expectations, and geopolitical risks—failed to boost Bitcoin. Investors preferred tangible assets like gold and silver, which benefit from institutional credibility and, in silver’s case, robust industrial demand from sectors like solar and electronics. Bitcoin, lacking industrial utility and relying on speculative and financial demand, struggled as ETF flows turned negative. While Bitcoin’s potential remains tied to future regulatory clarity or unique features like censorship resistance, it has yet to be integrated into the hard asset ecosystem. The 2025 trend underscores that macroeconomic tailwinds do not automatically extend to cryptocurrencies.

In 2025, the precious metals market experienced a frenzy. Silver broke through the $50 range in late November and then surged parabolically, reaching a historic high of $72 per ounce on December 24, with a yearly gain of 143%. Gold hit $4,524.30 per ounce on the same day, rising 70% for the year.

In stark contrast, Bitcoin was trading at $87,498 at the time of writing, down 8% year-to-date and 30% from its October peak of $126,000.

This has given pause to proponents of Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative, as the macroeconomic trends driving the rally in precious metals do not seem to be transferring to the crypto market.

The core drivers of the precious metals rally—a weaker U.S. dollar, expectations of Federal Reserve rate cuts in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks—are the very conditions Bitcoin supporters have long anticipated as bullish.

However, when allocating funds for避险, the market favors tangible hedging tools with centuries of credibility, like gold and silver. Central banks globally have been increasing their gold reserves throughout the year, and retail funds shifted towards physical precious metals after Bitcoin's decline early in the year.

Multiple studies in 2025 confirmed that gold demonstrates more stable避险 performance during various macroeconomic shocks, whereas Bitcoin behaves more like a high-beta risk asset, correlating positively with stocks and failing to lead in this cycle.

Structural demand differences further widened the gap. Silver's rise was fueled not only by避险 demand but also by record industrial demand from sectors like photovoltaics and electronics. Scarcity of substitutes in the supply chain exacerbated tightness, creating dual support from both macro and industrial factors.

Bitcoin, lacking industrial utility, has demand concentrated in financial speculation and on-chain settlements, with no physical demand buffer. This asymmetry means that even if rate cuts stall and risk appetite cools, silver still has industrial demand as a floor, while Bitcoin can only rely on ETF inflows to absorb selling pressure. With those flows now turning negative, its support has weakened.

The silver surge is a macroeconomic barometer, not a trading signal. It confirms the market's pricing of low real interest rates and a weak dollar, but it highlights that Bitcoin has not yet been integrated into the hard asset trading system.

For Bitcoin to reverse its downtrend, it needs improved regulatory clarity to drive renewed institutional allocation, a recovery in retail sentiment, or a macroeconomic shock where its attributes like censorship resistance and programmability prove valuable.

It is worth noting that silver positions are becoming relatively crowded; a hawkish pivot by the Fed or similar events could trigger asset volatility, which would also indirectly impact Bitcoin.

The divergence in 2025 proves that "hard assets" cannot yet be equated with Bitcoin. Silver combines industrial demand with institutional credibility, gold has institutional credibility and narrative momentum, while Bitcoin is still vying for institutional acceptance and can never possess industrial attributes.

This does not negate Bitcoin's value, but for it to outperform, additional conditions must be met. Once those conditions are satisfied, its upside potential could still surpass that of precious metals.

Until then, we must recognize that macroeconomic tailwinds have not yet propelled the crypto market, and Bitcoin still has a way to go before it becomes a hard asset.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7598415

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat were the key performance differences between precious metals and Bitcoin in 2025 as described in the article?

AIn 2025, silver surged by 143% and reached a record high of $72/oz, while gold rose 70% to $4524.30/oz. In contrast, Bitcoin fell 8% year-to-date and was down 30% from its October peak of $126,000.

QAccording to the article, what were the core drivers behind the rally in precious metals?

AThe core drivers for the precious metals rally were a weaker US dollar, expectations of Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks.

QWhy did the market prefer precious metals over Bitcoin for避险 (hedging/risk-off) allocation, as per the analysis?

AThe market preferred precious metals due to their century-long credibility as tangible hedging tools. Central banks increased gold reserves, and retail funds shifted to physical precious metals after Bitcoin's early-year decline, viewing gold's避险 performance as more stable.

QWhat structural demand difference between silver and Bitcoin contributed to their performance gap?

ASilver's demand was driven by both避险 and record industrial demand from sectors like photovoltaics and electronics, with scarce substitutes creating supply紧张. Bitcoin lacks industrial use, with demand focused solely on financial speculation and on-chain settlements, leaving it without a physical demand buffer.

QWhat does the article suggest Bitcoin needs to reverse its underperformance and potentially outperform precious metals?

AThe article suggests Bitcoin needs improved regulatory clarity to drive institutional re-allocation, a recovery in retail sentiment, or a macro shock where its censorship-resistant and programmable properties prove valuable. It states that Bitcoin still has the potential to outperform precious metals if these conditions are met.

Related Reads

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Following the collapse of Huione Pay—dubbed the "Alipay of Southeast Asia"—seven months ago, the region's underground financial guarantee platform sector is undergoing a significant reshuffle. This power vacuum has been swiftly filled by emerging platforms such as XinBi, Tiger/Navigator, JinBei (renamed JinBo), Dali/Tiancheng, and FullyLight. These platforms, operating largely via Telegram and offering services like escrow for illicit transactions, have absorbed the vast user base and markets left behind by Huione. While positioning themselves as "trust intermediaries," their primary clientele consists of networks involved in online scams, money laundering, illegal gambling, and even human trafficking. For instance, the Tiger/Navigator platform explicitly provides "escrow" services for kidnapping-for-ransom operations ("强押车交易"). Data underscores the immense scale: Huione alone processed over $103 billion in cryptocurrency payments and facilitated over $31 billion through its escrow market before its downfall, linking it to Cambodia's notorious Prince Group. Since its collapse, competitors have seen explosive growth. For example, the XinBi platform has accumulated over $1.6 billion in total USDT revenue, while platforms like NewPay, OkPay (under Dali), and FullyLight Wallet collectively processed over $4.8 billion in USDT in a single year. This ecosystem thrives in regions like Cambodia and Myanmar, where regulatory gaps allow these platforms to act as critical financial infrastructure for sprawling cybercrime industries, from scam compounds to online casinos. The article concludes that the moniker "Southeast Asian Alipay" is a misnomer, obscuring the platforms' fundamental role in enabling serious criminal enterprises rather than representing legitimate financial innovation.

Odaily星球日报26m ago

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Odaily星球日报26m ago

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Title: The Shifting Landscape of Crypto Venture Capital The era of dedicated crypto venture capital funds is undergoing a significant transformation. Once essential for navigating the sector's complexity and high risk, these specialized funds are now facing an identity crisis as the market matures. This shift mirrors historical patterns in other specialized investment classes like cleantech and SPACs, where initial information advantages dissipate as technologies become mainstream and integrated into existing industry frameworks. The article argues that crypto is reaching a critical inflection point, transitioning from a "building phase" to an "integration phase." Major players like Stripe, BlackRock, and Visa now engage with crypto not for its novel mechanics but as a foundational financial infrastructure. Their needs—regulatory compliance, banking partnerships, distribution channels—align with traditional fintech, a domain easily understood by large, generalist funds like Sequoia and Founders Fund. This evolution creates a "barbell effect" within the VC landscape. On one end are massive, diversified platforms that can incorporate crypto as one vertical among many. On the other are small, nimble funds focused on niche, experimental projects. The middle ground—medium-sized dedicated crypto funds—is being squeezed out. Their typical fund size makes it impossible to generate sufficient returns solely from early-stage crypto bets, yet they cannot compete with giants for later-stage deals. Consequently, leading crypto-native firms like Paradigm and Framework Ventures are expanding into AI, robotics, and other sectors, driven partly by LP pressure for better returns amid a broader VC DPI crisis. Others, like Dragonfly and a16z, have narrowed their crypto focus predominantly to financial infrastructure like stablecoins, reframing the sector's core narrative. For crypto entrepreneurs, this consolidation presents challenges. While generalist funds offer larger checks and broader resources, crypto projects now compete fiercely with AI for attention and capital within these firms. Furthermore, the long-term, non-commercial foundational work that built the ecosystem—funded by dedicated crypto VCs—is less likely to attract generalist capital focused on direct returns. The conclusion is that "crypto investor" as a standalone category is becoming obsolete, akin to "internet investor." Crypto is becoming a baseline infrastructure layer. The future will see a barbell structure: large-scale growth financing handled by generalist funds, while pioneering, speculative projects are funded by small, specialized vehicles. The dedicated crypto funds of the 2017-2021 boom, which incubated core infrastructure, are giving way to this new, bifurcated reality.

Foresight News43m ago

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Foresight News43m ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit1h ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

How to Buy FLOW

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing Flow (FLOW) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy Flow (FLOW) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your Flow (FLOW)After purchasing your Flow (FLOW), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade Flow (FLOW)Easily trade Flow (FLOW) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

3.8k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy FLOW

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of FLOW (FLOW) are presented below.

活动图片